This paper examines the ongoing debate over whether Shakespeare's literary works should be translated — either into modern English or into other regional and world languages. Drawing on examples from Hamlet, the paper argues that translation inevitably strips Shakespeare's writing of its essential richness: its figurative language, wordplay, puns, and layered meanings. The author explores cross-cultural translation challenges using Laura Bohannan's account of retelling Hamlet to West African elders, analyzes the linguistic gulf between English and Asian languages, and considers the political complexities of Norwegian translation. The paper ultimately concludes that Shakespeare's original work is irreplaceable, and that translated versions produce colorless, flattened texts that betray the playwright's intent.
Shakespeare has been the lord of writing for centuries. His work, full of wit and puns, has not been surpassed by any other writer. However, the language used in Shakespeare's work reflects the literary conventions of his era — a language full of flavor and richness that suited the culture of the Western world at that time. The central question is whether Shakespeare retains its meaning when translated into other languages. There are two different schools of thought on this subject. Research suggests that Shakespeare loses its essence when translated into any other language, becoming a mere story with no melody attached to it.
There are two aspects of translating Shakespeare's work: one is converting it into simple English, which is the main approach of modernizers, and the second is converting it into other regional languages such as Urdu, Persian, German, Japanese, and Norwegian. William Shakespeare wrote in a rich, layered Early Modern English that poses significant challenges for both approaches, and understanding why requires examining the nature of his language itself.
Considering the translation into simple English, one must accept that English is today's unified global language, mutually agreed upon by many nations as the primary medium of international communication. However, one must also ask whether today's English is what it was in Shakespeare's time. Literary works tend to retain a closer meaning when translated into a more modern version of their own language, because of the similar cultural base shared between the original and the modern form. To be more precise, it is history and ancient culture that shape new societies, and this is why, when translated into modern English, Shakespeare manages to retain at least some of its meaning.
Yet another question immediately arises: does the flavor and richness of Shakespeare's work remain intact? Without the twists, symbolic language, suitable gestures, and pauses, Shakespeare's work would turn into a simple story with no real essence and no genuine reflection of human behavior. Plain language with dictionary-definition words conveys the rational meaning of a subject, but Shakespeare's work is anything but purely rational — it is the reflection of human desires, encompassing the journeys of many. Every character Shakespeare designed operates within a particular axis that makes them exhibit entirely distinct behavior. In his work, nothing is marked as simply right or wrong, good or bad; rather, characters are shown as driven by their desires and the circumstances they face. Modern-day language, by contrast, strips this richness away by reducing characters to simply "good" or "bad," shedding no light on the forces driving those behaviors.
The impulse to simplify Shakespeare's work often emerges from what is known as Bardophobia — a fear of the gravity and complexity of his writing — which pushes readers to seek simpler versions of what they have been taught. It is also worth noting that certain words can only be used in specific social settings, despite having similar dictionary meanings. When one word is substituted for another, the contextual reference changes entirely, and so does the attached meaning. Although English has evolved over time, it has yet to provide equivalents for everything Shakespeare expressed. Every word has its own distinct essence; substitutes simply cannot replace the original.
Beyond vocabulary, Shakespeare's writing pattern itself must be understood. Shakespeare had a figurative flair embedded in his writing. Whatever he wrote often carried multiple meanings that not only seemed fitting for the given situation but also invited readers to engage more deeply, using their own instincts to deduce meaning. Mere substitution of words takes this liberty away from the reader.
Consider Hamlet: it would be an open challenge for anyone to find a suitable substitute for the echoes of Hamlet's "to be or not to be." Taught in today's classrooms, it seems a rather simple phrase on its surface, but when it comes to substitution or modern official translation, it is difficult to find a phrase that reflects the same meaning with exact finesse. Even individual words quoted from Hamlet fail to fit into a normal language structure because they thrive only in their particular context, accompanied by the right surrounding words. Secondly, in Shakespeare's work many grammatical rules are also violated in ways that seem perfectly fitting when read in complete context, but fail to justify themselves in a translated version.
Shakespeare's figurative language was the main element adding flair to his entire literary output. This symbolism is largely absent from modern-day English. When translators attempt to render Shakespeare into contemporary language, they frequently cannot find suitable figures of speech to replace those Shakespeare used. The result is the use of plain words in a fluent but flat manner, forming sequences of understandable sentences that lack Shakespeare's distinctive touch entirely.
For example, in Hamlet, Shakespeare used the phrase "oceans of hours" as a poetic reference. Finding a modern English replacement with the same intensity is extremely difficult; the easy substitute is simply "plenty of time." Another illustrative phrase is "Don't shoot the piano player," which demonstrates Shakespeare's command over figurative speech. The phrase means "do not kill the messenger," but the term piano player is more evocative in context because the information carried by the messenger had a soothing effect on Hamlet — much as music can. He therefore preferred calling the messenger a piano player. A similar example is "multifarious monster." Where a translated version would substitute modern words like villain or the bad guy, Shakespeare's original choice is far more powerful, conveying a bearer of multifaceted evil talents with sharp, dark intelligence (Partridge, 2001).
Shakespeare was a deliberate rule-breaker of language norms, and his rich expression in Hamlet illustrates this clearly. Take the line: "This above all: to thine own self be true." (Hamlet, Act 1, Scene 2). In simple language, it means "be true to yourself." However, a thorough analysis reveals something deeper: it does not matter what you present to others or whether you reveal your inner self to the world — what is always essential is that one knows oneself, one's own preferences and desires. It is remarkably difficult to compress all of this richness into a simple paraphrase when the word choices are changed.
"Deep reading of four famous Hamlet quotations"
"Bohannan's West Africa retelling illustrates cultural gaps"
"Structural and political barriers in Asian and Norwegian translation"
Shakespeare was the master of his own art. Many plays that he wrote have been unmatched. Despite the efforts of translators worldwide, his work has not been translated with its complete essence and richness. Rather, it loses its meaning under the influence of cultural forces and social contexts. The variation in time period between the writer and the translator also plays a vital role in determining the overall character of any translated work. The use of puns, vocabulary, syllables, idioms, rhetorical expression, and even grammar sets a clear boundary between Shakespeare's original work and any conversion of it into other languages. It is far better for Shakespeare's work to be understood as it is — in its original, irreplaceable form — than to be encountered in a translated, plain, and colorless version of itself.
You’re 49% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 3 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.